Proportionalitetsprincipen och svenska arbetsmarknadskonflikter - En rättsvetenskaplig analys med fokus på proportionalitetsprincipen och dess inflytande för regleringen av sympatiåtgärder på den svenska arbetsmarknaden
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The right to industrial action is well established within Swedish labour law and constitutes a significant part of the Swedish model. This distinguishes Sweden from many other countries, where the right of industrial action is not as extensive. However, the issue of the right to take industrial action, especially secondary actions, has been contentious, and the question of whether such rights should be limited has been raised in various inquiries and debates. This has primarily occurred in connection with legal cases and labour market conflicts that have highlighted how far secondary actions can be taken before imposing an unreasonably large burden on the opposing party. Consequently, the principle of proportionality becomes crucial to examine in the context of industrial action, particularly secondary actions. This essay discusses how EU legal regulations on proportionality affect the regulation of secondary actions in the Swedish labour market. It is noted that the principle of proportionality is given significant weight in EU law and in judgments of the EU Court of Justice. Despite this, the principle of proportionality regarding secondary actions is not as prominent in Swedish law, due to the absence of specific provisions addressing this issue. Industrial actions, especially sympathetic actions, are extensively considered in Swedish law but not within EU law, due to the EU's limited authority and competence in this area. It is also recognized in this essay that the principle of proportionality is used as a tool to balance conflicting interests, such as the right to strike, freedom of movement, and protecting employees' terms and conditions of employment for example. The cases Laval and Viking are used as guidance to answer how the proportionality principle affects the right to take secondary actions in Swedish labour market conflicts. However, there have been legislative changes since both rulings that have strengthened the position of the right to strike within EU law. In conclusion, Laval and Viking have not provided a definitive answer on when the right to strike can be restricted or how far sympathetic actions can be taken. However, they have opened up the question of how this issue can be assessed within community law.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.008 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".